Keeping some fans excited enough to believe we have a significant chance, while putting off any major decision for at least 11 months (from the Dodger trade to the deadline this year at the earliest).

I can't see getting excited about doing nothing this winter to make us better in 2015. I'd have at least understood if we'd gone out and tried to build a winner in 2013 in one winter, but it's all window dressing.

This board will be crawling with posters flipping and flopping or making excuses once reality sinks in: we wasted about $100M this winter to maybe reach .500, and not one dollar will help us in 2015 and beyond. Yeah, maybe that's over-simplifying, maybe we'll trade one of these newbies at the deadline for a decent prospect or two, but at this point, I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid or putting on the pink glasses.

This team did not improve it's future since the Dodger trade; it kept it the same.

This team is not a legitimate contender in 2013; stop kidding yourselves.

Miracles can and do happen, and I will be rooting for one this summer, but the Kool-Aid is all gone in my house.

I don't think this winter was just a punt. I guess that all depends on how legitimate a chance one believes this team has to make the postseason. The team already had a solid core of players around whom to build. IMO, the pieces added are enough, provided reasonable health and reasonable good luck in terms of performance, for this team to be a serious playoff contender.

The last thing the FO wanted to do was to take the money freed up from Beckett, CC, and Gonzalez and reinvest it in more long term, potentially bad contracts. The second to last thing they wanted to do was to pocket the money, or a good bit of it, and leave fans feeling like the owners skipped out on them. They did the right thing, IMO, by signing players who can be solid contibutors, though they might have the superstar potential.

I still don't understand your gripe about the FO not doing anything this offseason to improve the team in 2015. There was really no "must have" free agent worthy of a long term contract this off season. As far as trading away guys like Ellsbury or Lester to get prospects in return, why would you do that if you are trying to compete in 2013?

The contracts given this offseason were expensive, no doubt. That was the case pretty much across the board, not just with the Red Sox. However, they were all short enough in length that none of them will handcuff the team financially this year or in the future. And as has been said many times, the bet part is that they did not cost us in terms of prospects or draft picks.

For those of us who think the team put together can legimitely compete, the FO did a good job this offseason for both the short and long term outlooks. Maybe I am drinking some awfully good Kool-Aid, but I can live with that. ;-)

I agree 100% Kimmi. This offseason was just phase 1 of a longer term plan. Once they figure out what value they can put on certain peospects and players this year, then they will move forward woth the next part of the plan.

As a quick prediction at how many games our team may win this year, I looked at the players' average WAR over the last two years. The team's aggregate WAR from Baseball Reference is 29.9, not including any relievers or bench players except for David Ross, since he is expected to get a good amount of playing time.

A team of replacement players based on B-R's formula is expected to have a .320 winning %, or to win 52 games. Add to that the 29.9 wins that our players are worth above replacement, and that brings us to roughly 82 wins.

Mind you, there are some players like Middlebrooks whose WAR is based on only 75 games and Gomes whose WAR is based on about 110 games. There are others who were battling injuries or simply underperformed last year. A closer like Hanrahan can contribute 2 wins, not to mention the contributions of the other relievers.

This is not scientific, by any means, but I don't think it's unreasonable for this team to win 85 games with just and average amount of things breaking in our favor. If they can get a little better than average things to break their way, 90 wins should be within reach.

Its pretty obvious what Ben's plan is. The RS will get back to what they first set out to do when Henry group first purchased RS become a yearly contender by promoting a player producing farm system. Ben's early roots in RS was Player Developement. As Henry stated last yr after Dodger deal "RS lost their way". The RS will still be willing to bring in a top player thru trade or FA if it needs, but acquiring players [CC /Lackey /Agon] to make team "sexier" as Francona put it in his new book did not work. Naps/SV/Ross/Dempster/Gomes are all basically temps til the farm produces the "next great RS team" as Ben likes to say. This isn't all hype, as RS fan this is the best the farm has looked since mid 2000's when all in baseball were calling RS the model organization to be followed. Look at the list of players making there way to Fenway.

Probably more than half won't make an impact w/ RS. But if even half do the RS will be back on there way to competing for playoff spot yr in and yr out as long as they don't "lose there way again" i.e. as in giving a long term deal to a pitcher like A.Sanchez a .500 pitcher for his career who happened to pitch pretty well in playoffs the yr he hit FA. It those kind of deals that brought the RS down. RS are fortunate that they have $ to spend and if a player like Schilling is available to put them over the top they have the ability to go get him. But it will be the farm system that gets RS back to where they want to be, not FA.

I don't think this winter was just a punt. I guess that all depends on how legitimate a chance one believes this team has to make the postseason. The team already had a solid core of players around whom to build. IMO, the pieces added are enough, provided reasonable health and reasonable good luck in terms of performance, for this team to be a serious playoff contender.

You seriously think Sox management made a big play to turn a 69 win team into a solid playoff contender in one winter? Plus, the team was actually worse than a 69 win team after the Dodger trade- a trade that will likely do nothing to add value to the 2013 team, unless Webster does something mid season.

I am certain that Ben knows our chances are low this year. He tried to keep the seats full, the cable viewership high, and no long term strings that will allow him to make the real important decisions next winter or beyond. (Basically a punt)

The last thing the FO wanted to do was to take the money freed up from Beckett, CC, and Gonzalez and reinvest it in more long term, potentially bad contracts.

Please remember, I agree with this. This FA class was weak at the top. I was not for signing anyone to ab ig deal and long years. All I said was that I'd rather have had A Sanchez than the $100M+ on the guys I listed above.

The second to last thing they wanted to do was to pocket the money, or a good bit of it, and leave fans feeling like the owners skipped out on them.

Again, I agree, but free agency was not the only way to spend the money.

They did the right thing, IMO, by signing players who can be solid contibutors, though they might have the superstar potential.

You mean "not" have superstar potential?

I still don't understand your gripe about the FO not doing anything this offseason to improve the team in 2015. There was really no "must have" free agent worthy of a long term contract this off season. As far as trading away guys like Ellsbury or Lester to get prospects in return, why would you do that if you are trying to compete in 2013?

Seriously? There was not one player availablre via free agency or trade that would help us in 2015 and beyond? You really believe that?

As for competing in 2013, the teams we might have had by following other plans would have been just as competitive in 2013 as this team, if not more so, but the difference was, we'd be better situated for 2014 or 2015 and beyond in some cases.

The contracts given this offseason were expensive, no doubt. That was the case pretty much across the board, not just with the Red Sox. However, they were all short enough in length that none of them will handcuff the team financially this year or in the future. And as has been said many times, the bet part is that they did not cost us in terms of prospects or draft picks.

Almost the exact definition of a "punt".

For those of us who think the team put together can legimitely compete, the FO did a good job this offseason for both the short and long term outlooks. Maybe I am drinking some awfully good Kool-Aid, but I can live with that. ;-)

I drank the Kool-Aid for 5 years. It sneaks up on you, and you don't even realize what it is doing to you. Yeah, you can "live with it", but living in an alternate universe is not my idea of being a realistic fan.

Too much needs to go right for this team to be legitimate contenders. You think we can overcome key injuries like the Cards did and win it all? No, we need near perfect health and bounce back years from several players to even make the playoffs. With the ages and recent histories of many of our kep players, I just don't see it happening this year. It looks like we will already be starting the year without Papi, Drew, & Breslow... maybe more.

I agree 100% Kimmi. This offseason was just phase 1 of a longer term plan. Once they figure out what value they can put on certain peospects and players this year, then they will move forward woth the next part of the plan.

As a quick prediction at how many games our team may win this year, I looked at the players' average WAR over the last two years. The team's aggregate WAR from Baseball Reference is 29.9, not including any relievers or bench players except for David Ross, since he is expected to get a good amount of playing time.

A team of replacement players based on B-R's formula is expected to have a .320 winning %, or to win 52 games. Add to that the 29.9 wins that our players are worth above replacement, and that brings us to roughly 82 wins.

Mind you, there are some players like Middlebrooks whose WAR is based on only 75 games and Gomes whose WAR is based on about 110 games. There are others who were battling injuries or simply underperformed last year. A closer like Hanrahan can contribute 2 wins, not to mention the contributions of the other relievers.

This is not scientific, by any means, but I don't think it's unreasonable for this team to win 85 games with just and average amount of things breaking in our favor. If they can get a little better than average things to break their way, 90 wins should be within reach.

No, the 82 wins assumes everyone stay healthy. To win more than 82 will take near perfect health, and career years, bounce back years, and some luck.

We played it half way this winter. We won't win it all this year, and we did nothing to make us better longer term either. Playing it inbetween got us neither.

We will now have to wait until the deadline or next winter to start all over. We punted this winter. Face it.

Its pretty obvious what Ben's plan is. The RS will get back to what they first set out to do when Henry group first purchased RS become a yearly contender by promoting a player producing farm system. Ben's early roots in RS was Player Developement. As Henry stated last yr after Dodger deal "RS lost their way". The RS will still be willing to bring in a top player thru trade or FA if it needs, but acquiring players [CC /Lackey /Agon] to make team "sexier" as Francona put it in his new book did not work. Naps/SV/Ross/Dempster/Gomes are all basically temps til the farm produces the "next great RS team" as Ben likes to say. This isn't all hype, as RS fan this is the best the farm has looked since mid 2000's when all in baseball were calling RS the model organization to be followed. Look at the list of players making there way to Fenway.

Probably more than half won't make an impact w/ RS. But if even half do the RS will be back on there way to competing for playoff spot yr in and yr out as long as they don't "lose there way again" i.e. as in giving a long term deal to a pitcher like A.Sanchez a .500 pitcher for his career who happened to pitch pretty well in playoffs the yr he hit FA. It those kind of deals that brought the RS down. RS are fortunate that they have $ to spend and if a player like Schilling is available to put them over the top they have the ability to go get him. But it will be the farm system that gets RS back to where they want to be, not FA.

Agreed, but even the fram is no better than it was after the Dodger trade. I'm glad it didn't get worse, but it didn't get better either.

As a quick prediction at how many games our team may win this year, I looked at the players' average WAR over the last two years. The team's aggregate WAR from Baseball Reference is 29.9, not including any relievers or bench players except for David Ross, since he is expected to get a good amount of playing time.

A team of replacement players based on B-R's formula is expected to have a .320 winning %, or to win 52 games. Add to that the 29.9 wins that our players are worth above replacement, and that brings us to roughly 82 wins.

Mind you, there are some players like Middlebrooks whose WAR is based on only 75 games and Gomes whose WAR is based on about 110 games. There are others who were battling injuries or simply underperformed last year. A closer like Hanrahan can contribute 2 wins, not to mention the contributions of the other relievers.

This is not scientific, by any means, but I don't think it's unreasonable for this team to win 85 games with just and average amount of things breaking in our favor. If they can get a little better than average things to break their way, 90 wins should be within reach.

I agree: 81-82 wins is atttainable. More than that would be unexpected and require some luck. Worse yet, we didn't do a single thing this winter to improve the outlook for 2015 and beyond.

You seriously think Sox management made a big play to turn a 69 win team into a solid playoff contender in one winter? Plus, the team was actually worse than a 69 win team after the Dodger trade- a trade that will likely do nothing to add value to the 2013 team, unless Webster does something mid season.

Yes, I do seriously think that this team is a contender. IMO, the 69 wins was not inidicative of the ability of last year's team. Pretty much everything that could go wrong last year, went wrong. Our Pythagorean W-L record was 74-88. At the very least, I would start with 74 wins as the jumping point. The team was actually worse than its 69 wins after the Dodger trade, which means it was actually better than the 69 wins before the Dodger trade, when we weren't playing with a AAA line up.

Seriously? There was not one player availablre via free agency or trade that would help us in 2015 and beyond? You really believe that?

Of course there were players available. There are always players available if you're willing to pay enough. I said that there were no "must have" free agents worthy of a long term contract. A. Sanchez might help us in 2015, but IMO, he was not worth the cost, especially in terms of length of contract.

As far as obtaining players through trade, again there were players available. But, you're either going to give up the farm or you're going to trade a player who can help the team win this year. Neither of those options were preferable to me over what the FO did.

Almost the exact definition of a "punt".

The main difference being that I believe the team is a serious contender. If I didn't believe that the team had a good chance of contending, then I would agree with you that this offseasn was a punt.

but living in an alternate universe is not my idea of being a realistic fan.

So, because my opinion differs from yours, I am living in an alternate universe? I am optimistic. That doesn't mean I'm being unrealistic. I don't think we need near perfect health or performances to make the postseason. I just think we need better than average luck in these areas.

Moon, why Sanchez? Why not just go for the best pitcher, Grienke? It seems to me that youre playing into the same logic that Ben suffered from (hedging your bets)

This team needed to be blown up in 2011, it didnt happen until 2012 when Beckett's nonsense was clear even to the pollyannas like ben....

so we spent 150 mil on short term contracts to B level free agents? I got news for all of you - 150 mil isnt cheap and three years isnt short term. We couldve had Grienke pitching every five days and being our ace and reinvigorating our starting unit - do you think Lackey/Dempster will do that? We couldve went with the B-boys on the roster from the get-go instead of the tired, over the hill vets we signed to suck up time and space until ben deems them "ready"...

Sox fans seem to think they are so sophisticated when it comes to the team but instead of taking the lumps now and building towards the future, we have mortgaged it to marginal players who offer neither a future or success. This is why I argued to keep it simple in December...sign papi (which he did to keep the big bat in) sign Grienke, and let the kids play. Instad we have a calvacade of nobodies who we are supposed to pledge loyalty to while at the same time hearld their short term future?

No, the 82 wins assumes everyone stay healthy. To win more than 82 will take near perfect health, and career years, bounce back years, and some luck.

We played it half way this winter. We won't win it all this year, and we did nothing to make us better longer term either. Playing it inbetween got us neither.

We will now have to wait until the deadline or next winter to start all over. We punted this winter. Face it.

I disagree. Several players were injured or underperformed last year and/or the year before, and the team's aggregate WAR would still put us at 82 wins, not including any contributions from relievers or bench players. 82 wins assumes an average number of injuries and/or underperformances, not everything to go perfectly.

We may not win it all this year, but I think we have a very legitimate chance of making the playoffs. Once you get there, it's a crapshoot.

You seriously think Sox management made a big play to turn a 69 win team into a solid playoff contender in one winter? Plus, the team was actually worse than a 69 win team after the Dodger trade- a trade that will likely do nothing to add value to the 2013 team, unless Webster does something mid season.

Yes, I do seriously think that this team is a contender. IMO, the 69 wins was not inidicative of the ability of last year's team. Pretty much everything that could go wrong last year, went wrong. Our Pythagorean W-L record was 74-88. At the very least, I would start with 74 wins as the jumping point. The team was actually worse than its 69 wins after the Dodger trade, which means it was actually better than the 69 wins before the Dodger trade, when we weren't playing with a AAA line up.

Seriously? There was not one player availablre via free agency or trade that would help us in 2015 and beyond? You really believe that?

Of course there were players available. There are always players available if you're willing to pay enough. I said that there were no "must have" free agents worthy of a long term contract. A. Sanchez might help us in 2015, but IMO, he was not worth the cost, especially in terms of length of contract.

As far as obtaining players through trade, again there were players available. But, you're either going to give up the farm or you're going to trade a player who can help the team win this year. Neither of those options were preferable to me over what the FO did.

Almost the exact definition of a "punt".

The main difference being that I believe the team is a serious contender. If I didn't believe that the team had a good chance of contending, then I would agree with you that this offseasn was a punt.

but living in an alternate universe is not my idea of being a realistic fan.

So, because my opinion differs from yours, I am living in an alternate universe? I am optimistic. That doesn't mean I'm being unrealistic. I don't think we need near perfect health or performances to make the postseason. I just think we need better than average luck in these areas.

Predicting a WS win would be living in an alternate reality.

Saying this team should have it's best player perform up to expectation and having some luck break the team's way is reasonable.

If some fans fragile psyches wont let them be disappointed again, that' understandablre, I guess.

But, they seem to put a lot of time and energy into trying to convince others of thinking the same, without much to back it up.

so we spent 150 mil on short term contracts to B level free agents? I got news for all of you - 150 mil isnt cheap and three years isnt short term. We couldve had Grienke pitching every five days and being our ace and reinvigorating our starting unit - do you think Lackey/Dempster will do that? We couldve went with the B-boys on the roster from the get-go instead of the tired, over the hill vets we signed to suck up time and space until ben deems them "ready"...

Sox fans seem to think they are so sophisticated when it comes to the team but instead of taking the lumps now and building towards the future, we have mortgaged it to marginal players who offer neither a future or success. This is why I argued to keep it simple in December...sign papi (which he did to keep the big bat in) sign Grienke, and let the kids play. Instad we have a calvacade of nobodies who we are supposed to pledge loyalty to while at the same time hearld their short term future?

Insane....

This is 100% dead wrong, geo. All you have to do is look at the team's future salary commitments on the website called Cot's Contracts. Also keep in mind that the tax threshold increases to 189 million in 2014.

This is what we are currently obligated to pay for the next 3 years:

2014 88 million

2015 30 million

2016 ZERO

To say that the team's future is 'mortgaged to marginal players' is 100% dead wrong.

so we spent 150 mil on short term contracts to B level free agents? I got news for all of you - 150 mil isnt cheap and three years isnt short term. We couldve had Grienke pitching every five days and being our ace and reinvigorating our starting unit - do you think Lackey/Dempster will do that? We couldve went with the B-boys on the roster from the get-go instead of the tired, over the hill vets we signed to suck up time and space until ben deems them "ready"...

Sox fans seem to think they are so sophisticated when it comes to the team but instead of taking the lumps now and building towards the future, we have mortgaged it to marginal players who offer neither a future or success. This is why I argued to keep it simple in December...sign papi (which he did to keep the big bat in) sign Grienke, and let the kids play. Instad we have a calvacade of nobodies who we are supposed to pledge loyalty to while at the same time hearld their short term future?

Insane....

This is 100% dead wrong, geo. All you have to do is look at the team's future salary commitments on the website called Cot's Contracts. Also keep in mind that the tax threshold increases to 189 million in 2014.

This is what we are currently obligated to pay for the next 3 years:

2014 88 million

2015 30 million

2016 ZERO

To say that the team's future is 'mortgaged to marginal players' is 100% dead wrong.

good figures but i was talking more talent wise of having to see shane, napoli, ross, dempster etc at 15 mil a pop for the next 2/3 tears...thats not cheap and temp imo....plus the tax threshold like this fiscal cliff is just nonsense...it should make no difference in building a team

good figures but i was talking more talent wise of having to see shane, napoli, ross, dempster etc at 15 mil a pop for the next 2/3 tears...thats not cheap and temp imo....plus the tax threshold like this fiscal cliff is just nonsense...it should make no difference in building a team

Napoli is one year.

Ross is a backup catcher, and one of the best in baseball.

How can anyone complain about signings like those?

Victorino and Dempster, OK, I can see how there might be a beef on how much we're paying those two. But they're not terrible players, and every team in baseball has players like Victorino and Dempster.

I agree 100% Kimmi. This offseason was just phase 1 of a longer term plan. Once they figure out what value they can put on certain peospects and players this year, then they will move forward woth the next part of the plan.

You're actually sounding like you agree more with me than Kimmi.

You just reworded the concept of a "punt".

We are holding over for the next phase.

No, I wouldnt call it a punt. I truly believe they have the talent to compete. They are without a doubt the underdog, but certainly not a pushover. Were not holding over Moon and I never suggested or used those words. Like ive said numerous times, you CANT do it all in one year. This is a big year for a few prospects and players.

BC has a tough job being the GM in Boston. He cant just give up on a year in this market. I think what he did this offseason was start the ball rolling in the other direction, all while keeping the future in tact, cleaning up the clubhouse, and putting a product on the field that fans can get behind.

A certain poster above thinks they dont have a plan and just react, which shows how little he knows or hes just allowing his disdain for "big labor" cloud his vision. You dont become a billionaire and run a business by the seat of youre pants. Thats absurd thinking.

good figures but i was talking more talent wise of having to see shane, napoli, ross, dempster etc at 15 mil a pop for the next 2/3 tears...thats not cheap and temp imo....plus the tax threshold like this fiscal cliff is just nonsense...it should make no difference in building a team

Napoli is one year.

Ross is a backup catcher, and one of the best in baseball.

How can anyone complain about signings like those?

Victorino and Dempster, OK, I can see how there might be a beef on how much we're paying those two. But they're not terrible players, and every team in baseball has players like Victorino and Dempster.

but these guys were not just like everyone on somebodys roster...these are guys we sought and overpaid to sign as free agents after a 69 win season..and as you know napoli was a 3 yr signing until his hip did him in...gomes, ross, napoli, drew, shane, dempster, papi...add up the figures for these guys who are mostly 30something....

but these guys were not just like everyone on somebodys roster...these are guys we sought and overpaid to sign as free agents after a 69 win season..and as you know napoli was a 3 yr signing until his hip did him in...gomes, ross, napoli, drew, shane, dempster, papi...add up the figures for these guys who are mostly 30something....

i just dont know how this makes us better or points us to the future

A) It can't be proved till we play the games, but I think these guys do make us a lot better than we would have been if we did nothing.

B) They don't point us to the future. The future is our prospects and our payroll room.

but these guys were not just like everyone on somebodys roster...these are guys we sought and overpaid to sign as free agents after a 69 win season..and as you know napoli was a 3 yr signing until his hip did him in...gomes, ross, napoli, drew, shane, dempster, papi...add up the figures for these guys who are mostly 30something....

i just dont know how this makes us better or points us to the future

A) It can't be proved till we play the games, but I think these guys do make us a lot better than we would have been if we did nothing.

B) They don't point us to the future. The future is our prospects and our payroll room.

I wish Boston had signed both McCarthy and Marcum. I know that both have dealt with injuries but even if both pitchers gave around 20 starts, it would still be a bargain (considering how much Arizona paid for McCarthy and the Mets paid for Marcum).

I understand that McCarthy wanted to pitch in the west coast. But money talks. Just ask Johnny Damon or Greinke. LOL